- Harper “Black Friday Promulgation”
It seems that Harper is the only one that thinks that “Stephane Dion does not have the right to take office without an election”. However, one can only wonder what it is that Harper is saying exactly. Is this just rhetoric or is this a much more sinister message.
It is hard to think that Harper’s speech was simply the irrational ranting of a person soon to be dethroned. He seems to be saying that the previous vote trumps the Constitution, the will of Parliament and Governor General. Given that his minority party is the government of the day as a result of the Constitution, Will of Parliament and Governor General, his logic seems a bit self-defeating. Almost 2/3 rds of the Canadian people voted against Harper.
By his own logic, Harper would not have the right to take office. According to our Constitution however, he had the right to so do. According to our Constitution it behooves a minority government to form a consensus or it runs the risk it will fall. The Office of Prime Minster simply does not have the authority to determine whether after they fall there will be an election or not. Harper seems to be confusing Canada with the United States where they actually vote for and elect their head of the executive. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Mr. Harper, but this is Canada.
The last election did not elect him ‘Prime Minister”, it elected MP’s whose job it is to represent their constituency. According to our Parliamentary system, his party may form the government and it’s leader become Prime Minister provided, and as long as, it has the confidence of Parliament. This is not a ‘presidential’ system, where the election elects the President for a definite period of time. If one were to apply Harper’s argument our parliamentary system would be thrown out the window.
It is clear that the Governor General has the authority, and the duty, to consider, in these circumstances, whether a stable coalition can form a government and if so to invite them to so do.
It seems to me that, instead, the Constitutional experts should be deciding whether Harper would have the right to suspend Parliament until sometime after the New Year or even sine die, prior to a Confidence vote. Given his statements it seems he has backed himself into having to either reach out and work with the Opposition Parties or do something extreme like try to suspend Parliament. It seems to me that progressive, moderate, middle of the road parties would reach out and try to form a consensus. Only extremist ideologies allow for in your face government by minority.
An abridgement was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wGG29/BNStory/politics/
“GG would have little choice but to accept coalition pact, experts say”,Gloria Galloway, 29 Nov.’08
Lloyd MacIlquham
Lloyd MacIlquham
It is hard to think that Harper’s speech was simply the irrational ranting of a person soon to be dethroned. He seems to be saying that the previous vote trumps the Constitution, the will of Parliament and Governor General. Given that his minority party is the government of the day as a result of the Constitution, Will of Parliament and Governor General, his logic seems a bit self-defeating. Almost 2/3 rds of the Canadian people voted against Harper.
By his own logic, Harper would not have the right to take office. According to our Constitution however, he had the right to so do. According to our Constitution it behooves a minority government to form a consensus or it runs the risk it will fall. The Office of Prime Minster simply does not have the authority to determine whether after they fall there will be an election or not. Harper seems to be confusing Canada with the United States where they actually vote for and elect their head of the executive. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Mr. Harper, but this is Canada.
The last election did not elect him ‘Prime Minister”, it elected MP’s whose job it is to represent their constituency. According to our Parliamentary system, his party may form the government and it’s leader become Prime Minister provided, and as long as, it has the confidence of Parliament. This is not a ‘presidential’ system, where the election elects the President for a definite period of time. If one were to apply Harper’s argument our parliamentary system would be thrown out the window.
It is clear that the Governor General has the authority, and the duty, to consider, in these circumstances, whether a stable coalition can form a government and if so to invite them to so do.
It seems to me that, instead, the Constitutional experts should be deciding whether Harper would have the right to suspend Parliament until sometime after the New Year or even sine die, prior to a Confidence vote. Given his statements it seems he has backed himself into having to either reach out and work with the Opposition Parties or do something extreme like try to suspend Parliament. It seems to me that progressive, moderate, middle of the road parties would reach out and try to form a consensus. Only extremist ideologies allow for in your face government by minority.
An abridgement was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wGG29/BNStory/politics/
“GG would have little choice but to accept coalition pact, experts say”,Gloria Galloway, 29 Nov.’08
Lloyd MacIlquham
Lloyd MacIlquham
posted by wlloydm at
10:59 AM
<< Home